Gove confirmed that there won't be an extension of the transition period.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-gove-eu-extension-brexit-113321434.html

In addition, no full border checks on goods till July 2021 (to ensure that UK customs can cope with it).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/12/brexit-full-border-controls-on-goods-entering-uk-will-not-apply-until-july-2021

Thus, if anyone is smart, smuggle your stuff into the UK in the first few months. However, as the EU will impose border checks, the lorries will end up waiting in line at Dover.

JJJ wrote:

You're conflating two different things now. Because in most countries referendums are advisory, but indeed any constitutional change needs some kind of reinforced parliamentary majority.

Ironically, if the UK's EU referendum had been binding, the result would have been declared void by the Electoral Commission due to all the fraud in the leave campaign.

LJ wrote:

Gove confirmed that there won't be an extension of the transition period.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-gove-eu-extension-brexit-113321434.html

In addition, no full border checks on goods till July 2021 (to ensure that UK customs can cope with it).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/12/brexit-full-border-controls-on-goods-entering-uk-will-not-apply-until-july-2021

Thus, if anyone is smart, smuggle your stuff into the UK in the first few months. However, as the EU will impose border checks, the lorries will end up waiting in line at Dover.

Ooh opportunity abounds! Anyway, the real story here is what happened to taking back control of the UK's borders? I thought that was what the whole Brexit thing was about!

Actually no, the real story here is Michael Gove blatantly fibbing to the House Of Commons.

Business leaders have pleaded with the government not to walk away from Brexit talks without a deal after Michael Gove claimed the Confederation of British Industry supported no extension to the transition period.

The CBI’s director general, Carolyn Fairbairn, said to crash out without a deal would be a “major block to recovery”. Her comments come after Gove told the House of Commons that the CBI was now backing the government position not to seek an extension to the transition period at the end of the year.

“I know that businesses … want uncertainty to be removed. That’s why we’re clear that we will end the transition period on the 31 December, and it is a position that I also understand now the CBI is in favour of,” said Gove, who is charged with implementing the Brexit withdrawal agreement reached in January

A blatant and unequivocal lie. Remember the old days when ministers used to lose their jobs over this sort of thing? But hey, after the Dominic Cummings nonsense, anything goes now. Anything.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -warns-cbi

Reinhardt wrote:

Because it gives the Govenment at the time an idea of the level of feeling for a particular topic. That feeling being turnout and the result. You can't run a Govenment by asking the people all the time what they want. We elect representatives who we feel represent us best, our ideals values etc. They won't always do what you want, and if they don't you can vote them out next time. But by having descision made about massive structural country wide topics that most of the public cleary have no clue about is dangerous.

I agree that the Government should not continually hold referenda for trivial purposes as it would dilute the well. As is well known we have at a national level only have held 3 referenda’s on matters of national importance.

Whilst I agree that referenda give a better overall view on a particular matter better than opinion polls would have, but when matters of great national importance arise such as the EU which is a momentous important decision on national sovereignty I believe it is a duty for the Government to hold a referenda on the matter.

As to the matter general competence of the electorate, you don’t need a higher level of education to become an MP and most MP’s vote on the matter have access to the same level of information as the electorate unless you are in the inner circle of cabinet or shadow ministries, just because one becomes an MP they don’t suddenly become all knowing on matters of national importance any less than the electorate. And those who actually do vote many would actually be more readily informed than a parliamentary pleb

But at the same time i don’t agree that Parliament should have the only prerogative to decide the fate of the nation on national importance matters. If Parliament should be the only vessel to decide isn’t it putting the elites in control and at odds with pro-remain view that it was the elites within the leave campaign who orchestrated the result for personal gain?

Reinhardt wrote:

Personally I wouldn't have had a problem with a super marjority vote on Brexit but really it should never have been asked of the public and should have remained something that was part of a parties official manifesto.There was no remote majority for Brexit in the public or in the HOC prior to Cameron calling the vote.

I personally think that in the UK case for a super majority (what is the definition of SM) doesn’t actually work due to the non compulsory nature of our voting system unlike in Australia where voting is compulsory even Australia do not use the super majority in referenda’s it’s 50%+1 of voter turnout.

I have actually agreed in the past that the referenda should have had a double majority. There were 5 constituent countries and overseas territory involved in the referenda as the Government had declared that they would enact the vote, it should have been 50%+1 and majority of countries & BOT involved at the time

Reinhardt wrote:

but really it should never have been asked of the public and should have remained something that was part of a parties official manifesto.

There was no remote majority for Brexit in the public or in the HOC prior to Cameron calling the vote.

While party manifesto are a guide to the intentions of the party overall, should we be revisiting this matter at every election. I’d imagine that the EU would get pretty pissed off if every 5 years or so we could join then leave at the whim of a party if they gain the necessary majority without first getting the majority electorate to come with it.

As for Cameron and no remote majority, there’s always an underlying seed ready to sprout from a dormant point just add water it’s percolated in every Government on the surface since we joined in 73. It was actually Cameron’s intent to put the matter to bed one way or the other as it had been a distraction to him since 2010 and the media picked it up and ran with it as it became more prominent when Cameron wanted to bring reform within the EU

LJ wrote:

Gove confirmed that there won't be an extension of the transition period.

up to the UK, the Brexit folks will get their way, a hard Brexit it is.

LJ wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-gove-eu-extension-brexit-113321434.html

In addition, no full border checks on goods till July 2021 (to ensure that UK customs can cope with it).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/12/brexit-full-border-controls-on-goods-entering-uk-will-not-apply-until-july-2021

Thus, if anyone is smart, smuggle your stuff into the UK in the first few months. However, as the EU will impose border checks, the lorries will end up waiting in line at Dover.

Up to the UK to let anything in. The EU will be ready to stop all goods at the border and give them a good look over to see if it complies with all the rules.
It is quite astonishing that the UK government isn't ready after five years, but ok, an extra six month it is.

The EU can likely provided assurance that all of its exports to the UK will meet EU standards. The UK can allow essential products to flow in freely, and introduce border checks and tariffs as they are able to cope with the logistics.

July 2021 is a pipe dream, July 2024 is more likely.

Also Gove didn't lie since he said "he understood", so he can say later that he misunderstood...

We all know that what businesses want is to actually know the rules they will have to deal with, not to just know that it will be chaos because at best a deal will be signed at the last minute !

vc10 wrote:

I have kept a eye on the postings on this subject for many a year now and what amazes me is why so many EU members are worried about what the UK does as throughout this topic the Mainland Europeans have told everybody that the UK does not matter

If the UK didn't matter then we wouldn't be having any negotiation.

All countries matter. Some more, some less, that's all.

Also, UK members and politicians are taunting us by announcing the collapse of the dreadful EU every couple of weeks...

Aesma wrote:

vc10 wrote:

I have kept a eye on the postings on this subject for many a year now and what amazes me is why so many EU members are worried about what the UK does as throughout this topic the Mainland Europeans have told everybody that the UK does not matter

If the UK didn't matter then we wouldn't be having any negotiation.

All countries matter. Some more, some less, that's all.

Also, UK members and politicians are taunting us by announcing the collapse of the dreadful EU every couple of weeks...

I think he is mainly basing his comment on post within the forum.

But I agree certain publications from the media do like like to emphasise certain aspects of comments from politicians across both the UK and continental Europe. But from what I can see no one is doing that on this forum

vc10 wrote:

I have kept a eye on the postings on this subject for many a year now and what amazes me is why so many EU members are worried about what the UK does as throughout this topic the Mainland Europeans have told everybody that the UK does not matter

Ideology-driven political, cultural and economical suicide of a fellow european country will always be relevant for discussion (and dire warnings).

That just has little to do with the relative survivability of that self-inflicted wound.

A bit of secondary splatter is quite different in impact from blowing one's own brains out just out of spite.

A101 wrote:

I agree that the Government should not continually hold referenda for trivial purposes as it would dilute the well. As is well known we have at a national level only have held 3 referenda’s on matters of national importance.

Whilst I agree that referenda give a better overall view on a particular matter better than opinion polls would have, but when matters of great national importance arise such as the EU which is a momentous important decision on national sovereignty I believe it is a duty for the Government to hold a referenda on the matter.

Have to agree to disagree then.

I feel that such a topic is just too complex for the majority of the public to understand fully especially any repercussions. As we found out with the Brexit campaign it was tainted by lies and spending issues. If you can't guarantee a free and fair debate then it should be left to something more stringently regulated..e.g an election. Mind you the Brexit referenDUM was only advisory anyway, so perhaps my problem shouldn't only be with the process, but how the govenment at the time promoted and implemented it's result.

A101 wrote:

As to the matter general competence of the electorate, you don’t need a higher level of education to become an MP and most MP’s vote on the matter have access to the same level of information as the electorate unless you are in the inner circle of cabinet or shadow ministries, just because one becomes an MP they don’t suddenly become all knowing on matters of national importance any less than the electorate. And those who actually do vote many would actually be more readily informed than a parliamentary pleb

That's one of the biggest problems with MPs and Parliament right now. The quality of MPs is appaling. Some of that the fault of the system but a lot of that is the fault of the public for who they vote in. Just look at the experience and people who were lost at the last election entirely because of Brexit (on both sides of the isle) and the look at the new MPs we got it.

MPs should be brighter than average, they shouldn't be bred for office and should not be career politicians.

What they are however, whatever their intelligence is answerable to the people. They don't need to represent all the views of the people who voted them in, it's the other way round. You elect someone who best feels represents you. This ideology of having an MP who bends to the will of the electorate over any topic is wrong.

A101 wrote:

But at the same time i don’t agree that Parliament should have the only prerogative to decide the fate of the nation on national importance matters. If Parliament should be the only vessel to decide isn’t it putting the elites in control and at odds with pro-remain view that it was the elites within the leave campaign who orchestrated the result for personal gain?

See above. It's entirely because of who we have as MPs right now.

Indeed, vote leave and associated parties should never have been allowed to have done what they have. And the connections with people with a lot of money, and certain far right groups in the US is appalling. It isn't conspriacy theory either. Money, elites, vested interest should be nowhere near politics. It's what the US has and they have (they won't admit it) one of the most perverted 'democracies' in the world. EU countries actually lead in this area, but the UK is heading more and more towards the US system. It needs to stop.

A101 wrote:

I personally think that in the UK case for a super majority (what is the definition of SM) doesn’t actually work due to the non compulsory nature of our voting system unlike in Australia where voting is compulsory even Australia do not use the super majority in referenda’s it’s 50%+1 of voter turnout.

I have actually agreed in the past that the referenda should have had a double majority. There were 5 constituent countries and overseas territory involved in the referenda as the Government had declared that they would enact the vote, it should have been 50%+1 and majority of countries & BOT involved at the time

ReferenDUM = singular.

Therein lied the problem "they would enact the vote". What if it was even closer, .5% margin, 1% margin. Would they have enacted that?

A101 wrote:

While party manifesto are a guide to the intentions of the party overall, should we be revisiting this matter at every election. I’d imagine that the EU would get pretty pissed off if every 5 years or so we could join then leave at the whim of a party if they gain the necessary majority without first getting the majority electorate to come with it.

Yes which is why no major party ever had it included in their manifesto. Because it was and is stupid. Which is why it remained only in a small party, UKIP. And why it stayed there only until Cameron screwed up to save his own party.

Reinhardt wrote:

I feel that such a topic is just too complex for the majority of the public to understand fully especially any repercussions.

In this day and age with all the education provided and open communication I am uncomfortable with such an opinion.

par13del wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

I feel that such a topic is just too complex for the majority of the public to understand fully especially any repercussions.

In this day and age with all the education provided and open communication I am uncomfortable with such an opinion.

Why? It is very complex issue and easily corrupted by playing on feelings. There are a lot of issues I would be very uncomfortable with to be asked to make a discission if I do not take the time to study the subject in-depth. In or out of the EU is perhaps one of the best examples in the reason past to be put to the people.

par13del wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

I feel that such a topic is just too complex for the majority of the public to understand fully especially any repercussions.

In this day and age with all the education provided and open communication I am uncomfortable with such an opinion.

Why? Do you expect the general public to understand the nuances of the criminal justice system? Do you think most of the public has any clue at all about how laws are created and voted on? A lot don't care, some just aren't capable of understanding it. I'd class myself as a fairly educated and intelligent guy, and even I didn't know half the stuff about the EU when I voted. I only found out about it because I made a point of expanding my knowledge, in part because of this forum but also because I started re-buffing tons of the utter nonsense spouted by friends / colleagues who were blasting out ERG, Farage, Daily Fail/ Express retoric.

Is it not why we have elected representatives? To do what's in our best interest? Their job is to research and understand matters that they vote on. They should, no *MUST* know more about these subjects than joe blogs. For all this you need trust, and you need capable people doing that on your behalf. Addmittedly right now that is broken, but it's gotten a hell of lot worse during and since Brexit.

I don't understand how there is room in the HOC for Nadine Dorres but not Dominic Greeve, Douglas Carswell / Mark Francois but not Sarah Wollaston. Both are intellectual heavy weights in comparison, but just happened to be on the wrong side of the Brexit debate. The country, Parliament is all the worse for it. They called it a purge, they were right.

The other thing is, the general publics view on matters changes very quickly. One week one subject is in fashion to talk about the next week it's forgotten. Having referendum votes about 'in vogue' issues is silly. If people are not making an informed, impartial view then you end up being in the situation we are in now.
And then it kicks into general elections..just like in 2019. People vote only on how that MP voted in the referendum. The country becomes massively split and the poorer for it.

It's a crap way to do democracy.

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

It was presented as a consultative vote only, so no such provisions were included….

FWIW-
In my country, in order to change something to our constitutional arrangement, Parliament needs to take a vote on each of the individual articles of our constitution it wants to change in order to declare them individually 'up for chance' (acceptance is with an absolute majority), after which Parliament is automatically dissolved and elections are to be held within 40 days, making them focussed on this issue of course.
The newly elected Parliamant can then chance those articles and only those, provided there's a 2/3rd majority in Parliament in favour for a chance. (plus an absolute majority in each of the constituting federated entities too!)

The above method prevents:
- a momentary parliamentary majority to quickly rush through a constitutional change
- voters from being denied changing their mind or having a second opinion
- a re-elected, yet simple majority to enforce their will against a -still large- minority
- one homogeneous federated entity to impose its will on the other(s).

Constitutions protect basic rights and freedoms of individual citizens: those must be well guarded against "the will of (other) people" so the bar for any change must be set extemely high.
Brexit is a textbook exemple how not to do it: just over 1/3th of Brits, mostly from one region of the country, voted to strip the other 2 third of their countrymen of some of their precious personal rights and freedoms!

par13del wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

I feel that such a topic is just too complex for the majority of the public to understand fully especially any repercussions.

In this day and age with all the education provided and open communication I am uncomfortable with such an opinion.

BoJo himself has no clue of what Brexit means so what chance has the average voter ?

It's like the 2005 French vote on the EU constitution, nobody read it before the vote. You shouldn't be allowed to vote on it without reading it.

Then there is the first referendum I voted on, to change the way presidential and legislative elections are run, now even politicians that promoted it back then argue it was a grave mistake !

sabenapilot wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

It was presented as a consultative vote only, so no such provisions were included….

FWIW-
In my country, in order to change something to our constitutional arrangement, Parliament needs to take a vote on each of the individual articles of our constitution it wants to change in order to declare them individually 'up for chance' (acceptance is with an absolute majority), after which Parliament is automatically dissolved and elections are to be held within 40 days, making them focussed on this issue of course.
The newly elected Parliamant can then chance those articles and only those, provided there's a 2/3rd majority in Parliament in favour for a chance. (plus an absolute majority in each of the constituting federated entities too!)

The above method prevents:
- a momentary parliamentary majority to quickly rush through a constitutional change
- voters from being denied changing their mind or having a second opinion
- a re-elected, yet simple majority to enforce their will against a -still large- minority
- one homogeneous federated entity to impose its will on the other(s).

Constitutions protect basic rights and freedoms of individual citizens: those must be well guarded against "the will of (other) people" so the bar for any change must be set extemely high.
Brexit is a textbook exemple how not to do it: just over 1/3th of Brits, mostly from one region of the country, voted to strip the other 2 third of their countrymen of some of their precious personal rights and freedoms!

52% was a representation of the nation.

If people couldn’t be bothered to vote, then that is their problem and they cannot complain about the outcome.

I cannot believe people are still going on about the vote. It was 4 years ago.

People need to stop sulking and move on.

People need to believe in Britain.

noviorbis77 wrote:

52% was a representation of the nation.

Was never good enough for me and will never be. The reason for, the process etc etc.

noviorbis77 wrote:

If people couldn’t be bothered to vote, then that is their problem and they cannot complain about the outcome.

I cannot believe people are still going on about the vote. It was 4 years ago.

People need to stop sulking and move on.

We're still moaning about it, because the Govenment are still screwing it up. And none of us are the least bit suprised. Just constantly amazed at the incredible lack of... lets call it professionalism and understanding of the subject matter.

If it was done and dusted by now, with a sensible agreement done in a sensible way we'd not be talking about it.

Reinhardt wrote:

Have to agree to disagree then.

I feel that such a topic is just too complex for the majority of the public to understand fully especially any repercussions. As we found out with the Brexit campaign it was tainted by lies and spending issues. If you can't guarantee a free and fair debate then it should be left to something more stringently regulated..e.g an election. Mind you the Brexit referenDUM was only advisory anyway, so perhaps my problem shouldn't only be with the process, but how the govenment at the time promoted and implemented it's result.

An election instead of referenda on something on a matter of national importance, well that’s most nearly all elections ( just the subject matter changes and given more prominence than other matters), and as we have seen within a major party the are differing opinions within the party just like was on Brexit. Just look at when Parliament was a rabble when given the chance on Indicative voting on Brexit. Also on that matter that doesn’t change the fact that the greater members of Parliament are any more the wiser on the matter than the average voter at large.

The campaign was run along the lines any different the a GE campaign there are many truths half truth and just plain lies packaged as the truth


While it’s true the referenda was only advisory it doesn’t stop the Government/Parliament acting like it was binding in which Cameron declared before hand the result will be implemented, and all this done via Government/Parliamentary regulations/legislative law, Parliament vote gave its consent at every step of the way leading up to the referenda and after on the EU withdrawal bill plus Millers a Supreme Court challenge.

Reinhardt wrote:

That's one of the biggest problems with MPs and Parliament right now. The quality of MPs is appaling. Some of that the fault of the system but a lot of that is the fault of the public for who they vote in. Just look at the experience and people who were lost at the last election entirely because of Brexit (on both sides of the isle) and the look at the new MPs we got it.

Really it’s representative of a broad cross section of the community, within its representatives we have academics lawyers ex police ex defence nurses doctors right down to MP that were lorry drivers

Reinhardt wrote:

MPs should be brighter than average, they shouldn't be bred for office and should not be career politicians.

So what are you going to use as your barometer to test if a person is above average to enable them to stand for Parliament? Education level IQ test

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 19.1581077

Reinhardt wrote:

What they are however, whatever their intelligence is answerable to the people. They don't need to represent all the views of the people who voted them in, it's the other way round. You elect someone who best feels represents you. This ideology of having an MP who bends to the will of the electorate over any topic is wrong.

Agree to a point in 99% of the matters but some matters are more important in one electorate than another or the nation as a whole, if one wants to stay an as elected representative of Parliament one must also have there wits about them if the majority do not support the incumbent views or action in Parliament

Reinhardt wrote:

See above. It's entirely because of who we have as MPs right now.

Indeed, vote leave and associated parties should never have been allowed to have done what they have. And the connections with people with a lot of money, and certain far right groups in the US is appalling. It isn't conspriacy theory either. Money, elites, vested interest should be nowhere near politics. It's what the US has and they have (they won't admit it) one of the most perverted 'democracies' in the world. EU countries actually lead in this area, but the UK is heading more and more towards the US system. It needs to stop.

That’s the way of the world, money talks and bullshit walks. If you are after some sort of political utopia then public and corporate donations need to stop, membership fees are another source

One way or another it can be associated with Cash for Influence

Reinhardt wrote:

Yes which is why no major party ever had it included in their manifesto. Because it was and is stupid. Which is why it remained only in a small party, UKIP. And why it stayed there only until Cameron screwed up to save his own party.

That’s plainly wrong:

Jo Swinson said in Parliament in 2008 that the Liberal Democrats "would like to have a referendum on the major issue of whether we are in or out of Europe".

2010 election manifesto said it remained committed to an in/out referendum "the next time a British government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship" with the EU.

Green Party in 2010 supported proposals for an in/out referendum, saying: "It's yes to Europe, yes to reform of the EU but also yes to a referendum"

Labour supported a referendum on the terms of the UK's membership in its 2005 manifesto

One also must be mindful of the European Union Act 2011 in which a referenda lock was put in place on if any further proposal were made to transfer further powers from the UK to the EU via amendments to the Lisbon Treaty

Reinhardt wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

52% was a representation of the nation.

Was never good enough for me and will never be. The reason for, the process etc etc

It was good enough for Parliament since they were the ones who actually voted in the legislation to hold a referenda and did not put any stipulations on any super majority or double majority lock

Aesma wrote:

par13del wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

I feel that such a topic is just too complex for the majority of the public to understand fully especially any repercussions.

In this day and age with all the education provided and open communication I am uncomfortable with such an opinion.

BoJo himself has no clue of what Brexit means so what chance has the average voter ?

It's like the 2005 French vote on the EU constitution, nobody read it before the vote. You shouldn't be allowed to vote on it without reading it.

I had recently arrived in France from another EU country and was quite shocked how misrepresented and confused it was. A foreshadowing of 2016...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12967 ... son-update


EU moves to a bare bones FTA with UK.

No fishing...

Siunds like "let us be friends" breakup...

What will this mean for erasmus, blue health cards, passporting in financial industry for uk?

seahawk wrote:

People need to believe in Britain.

Not sure if you’re sarcastic or not, but yes people do.

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

Arion640 wrote:

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

Lol - you ‘avin a laff?

The majority of the British population don’t take advantage of the freedom to pray in a temple either. Stripping the minority that do take advantage of that freedom is only a “win” for the majority in a tyranny of the majority. It is not compatible with what we in the west call democracy. And not a “win” in any democracy worth its salt.

The tyranny of the majority is not a new concept. It’s the basis of modern western democracy. Checks and balances etc. Alexis de Tocqueville, JS Mills, Edmund Burke, James Madison (yes, the same one who lends his name to Madison Square and Madison Avenue in the Big Apple) have all written about this issue at length. It’s why the UK has an independent judiciary (or as Brexiteers like to call it, “enemy of the people”) that can block elected parliamenterians from passing laws to allow - for example - racism against, or even the enslavement of, BAMEs (a rather topical issue these days; I wonder where Tommy R would stand on those).

Perhaps you meant to use that statement to elicit a reaction. Perhaps you know no better.

Either way, intellectual dishonesty and/or intellectual vacuity are not a good look. I understand that some Brexiteers here get very upset when they’re characterized as such. Maybe they’ll step in to help you fix the problematic aspects of your post.

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

People need to believe in Britain.

Not sure if you’re sarcastic or not, but yes people do.

Why should I be? The UK has survived bigger challenges.

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

Good for them!

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

Who picks your fruits? Not the British. Anyone who buys fruits from British farmland (which is probably picked by cheap Eastern Europeans) has benefited from the freedom of movement. The same applies to the the European doctors and nurses working in the NHS. Do you really believe they would be there without the freedom of movement?

LJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

Who picks your fruits? Not the British. Anyone who buys fruits from British farmland (which is probably picked by cheap Eastern Europeans) has benefited from the freedom of movement. The same applies to the the European doctors and nurses working in the NHS. Do you really believe they would be there without the freedom of movement?

Many have left already, so we know.......

olle wrote:

What will this mean for erasmus, blue health cards, passporting in financial industry for uk?

erasmus --> gone
blue health cards --> gone
passporting in financial industry --> gone

This is what the British have chosen for (according to the Brexiteers).

LJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

Who picks your fruits? Not the British. Anyone who buys fruits from British farmland (which is probably picked by cheap Eastern Europeans) has benefited from the freedom of movement. The same applies to the the European doctors and nurses working in the NHS. Do you really believe they would be there without the freedom of movement?

They will still come with our new immigration system. And we can get the people we need and want. It just may be a little harder but they will still come.

There are always ways round, while we can get non EU citizens from places like Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa or the Philippines to work in our NHS as they have done for countless years.

ElPistolero wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

Lol - you ‘avin a laff?

The majority of the British population don’t take advantage of the freedom to pray in a temple either. Stripping the minority that do take advantage of that freedom is only a “win” for the majority in a tyranny of the majority. It is not compatible with what we in the west call democracy. And not a “win” in any democracy worth its salt.

The tyranny of the majority is not a new concept. It’s the basis of modern western democracy. Checks and balances etc. Alexis de Tocqueville, JS Mills, Edmund Burke, James Madison (yes, the same one who lends his name to Madison Square and Madison Avenue in the Big Apple) have all written about this issue at length. It’s why the UK has an independent judiciary (or as Brexiteers like to call it, “enemy of the people”) that can block elected parliamenterians from passing laws to allow - for example - racism against, or even the enslavement of, BAMEs (a rather topical issue these days; I wonder where Tommy R would stand on those).

Perhaps you meant to use that statement to elicit a reaction. Perhaps you know no better.

Either way, intellectual dishonesty and/or intellectual vacuity are not a good look. I understand that some Brexiteers here get very upset when they’re characterized as such. Maybe they’ll step in to help you fix the problematic aspects of your post.

Completely off topic after about the second paragraph.

LJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

Who picks your fruits? Not the British. Anyone who buys fruits from British farmland (which is probably picked by cheap Eastern Europeans) has benefited from the freedom of movement. The same applies to the the European doctors and nurses working in the NHS. Do you really believe they would be there without the freedom of movement?

One interesting statistic that is often misquoted by Brexiteers is that 3 million Europeans are in the UK vs 1.2 million British in the EU (some other sources put it at over 2 million but let's go with the lesser figure).

What this means is that, proportionally, British citizens exercise their freedom of movement to the EU at twice the rate other EU citizens move to the UK.

On a related note, the factory that made passports for the last years is closing.

https://t.co/F50vmaz4KP?amp=1

JJJ wrote:

LJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

Who picks your fruits? Not the British. Anyone who buys fruits from British farmland (which is probably picked by cheap Eastern Europeans) has benefited from the freedom of movement. The same applies to the the European doctors and nurses working in the NHS. Do you really believe they would be there without the freedom of movement?

One interesting statistic that is often misquoted by Brexiteers is that 3 million Europeans are in the UK vs 1.2 million British in the EU (some other sources put it at over 2 million but let's go with the lesser figure).

What this means is that, proportionally, British citizens exercise their freedom of movement to the EU at twice the rate other EU citizens move to the UK.

On a related note, the factory that made passports for the last years is closing.

https://t.co/F50vmaz4KP?amp=1

1.2 million British in the EU vs a Population of 60+ million British citizens. Quite irrelevant. Again the majority wins. If they want to come back fine, if the EU is happy to accept them also fine.

Arion640 wrote:

They will still come with our new immigration system. And we can get the people we need and want. It just may be a little harder but they will still come.

We'll see, right now many are leaving and have left due to the unfriendly climate in the UK.

Arion640 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

Lol - you ‘avin a laff?

The majority of the British population don’t take advantage of the freedom to pray in a temple either. Stripping the minority that do take advantage of that freedom is only a “win” for the majority in a tyranny of the majority. It is not compatible with what we in the west call democracy. And not a “win” in any democracy worth its salt.

The tyranny of the majority is not a new concept. It’s the basis of modern western democracy. Checks and balances etc. Alexis de Tocqueville, JS Mills, Edmund Burke, James Madison (yes, the same one who lends his name to Madison Square and Madison Avenue in the Big Apple) have all written about this issue at length. It’s why the UK has an independent judiciary (or as Brexiteers like to call it, “enemy of the people”) that can block elected parliamenterians from passing laws to allow - for example - racism against, or even the enslavement of, BAMEs (a rather topical issue these days; I wonder where Tommy R would stand on those).

Perhaps you meant to use that statement to elicit a reaction. Perhaps you know no better.

Either way, intellectual dishonesty and/or intellectual vacuity are not a good look. I understand that some Brexiteers here get very upset when they’re characterized as such. Maybe they’ll step in to help you fix the problematic aspects of your post.

Completely off topic after about the second paragraph.

Is it? In a discussion about democratic methods and democracy, it’s perfectly legitimate and on-topic to challenge bizarre proclamations about democracy by self-proclaimed “democrats”. And, indeed, to ask if these proclamations are deliberate and by design, or merely representative of abilities. Funny how Brexiteers never step in to correct the bizarre proclamations, either.

Anyway, I guess the proof is in eating the pudding. Too many Brexiteers have signed on to a rudimentary majoritarianism, evidently mistaking it for democracy, and seem confounded by the way it’s wrecking the UK. Divisions every which way these days - and that too despite the pandemic. That statues of modern British heroes have to be boarded up in the UK, while going generally untouched in countries that the UK likes to claim kinship with (Canada, Australia, NZ) tells it’s own tale about the dangers of the path that Brexit majoritarians tread. After all, none of us will be surprised if even views on / participation in the current disturbances - protests etc - break along Brexit leave / remain lines.

Seems even die hard Brexiteers have taken to pointing out exactly what several posters here have already pointed out, although I doubt it will stop the convoluted denials from some of the Brexiteers here.

Excerpts from an article on the Telegraph published today - by two Brexit Party MEPs:

- “The deal he called vassalage months before had simply been swaddled in shiny paper.”
...
(Followed by a list of grievances, including the border down the Irish Sea)
...
- “Knowing that the die is cast on the above, Barnier now cites the Political Declaration at every opportunity.... He does not miss an opportunity to put "on the record" that Boris signed-up to the Political Declaration and the EU fully expects the Prime Minister to deliver the grotesque elements it contains: the level playing field covering state aid, employment, climate, competition and environment laws, even taxation expectations and, of course, access to our waters.

To deviate would invite Barnier to accuse the UK of failing to use our "best endeavours in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the political declaration"...

The supposedly innocuous Political Declaration, which Boris dismissed as not legally binding, is far from a disposable document to Barnier.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... grotesque/

“Legally-binding” or “not legally-binding” only matters in courts from this point on. As far as non-Brexiteers and third parties are concerned, the UK signed an agreement called the PD. If it reneges on this non legally binding declaration, I suspect many potential trade partners will pay close attention, as one would expect, if one of their main trading partners - the EU - accuses another nation of negotiating in bad faith. Might give them something to think about.

Arion640 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

LJ wrote:

Who picks your fruits? Not the British. Anyone who buys fruits from British farmland (which is probably picked by cheap Eastern Europeans) has benefited from the freedom of movement. The same applies to the the European doctors and nurses working in the NHS. Do you really believe they would be there without the freedom of movement?

One interesting statistic that is often misquoted by Brexiteers is that 3 million Europeans are in the UK vs 1.2 million British in the EU (some other sources put it at over 2 million but let's go with the lesser figure).

What this means is that, proportionally, British citizens exercise their freedom of movement to the EU at twice the rate other EU citizens move to the UK.

On a related note, the factory that made passports for the last years is closing.

https://t.co/F50vmaz4KP?amp=1

1.2 million British in the EU vs a Population of 60+ million British citizens. Quite irrelevant. Again the majority wins. If they want to come back fine, if the EU is happy to accept them also fine.

If you're fine with stripping millions of people of a certain right because of a 51-49 vote there's really not much to talk about.

ElPistolero wrote:

Legally-binding” or “not legally-binding” only matters in courts from this point on. As far as non-Brexiteers and third parties are concerned, the UK signed an agreement called the PD. If it reneges on this non legally binding declaration, I suspect many potential trade partners will pay close attention, as one would expect, if one of their main trading partners - the EU - accuses another nation of negotiating in bad faith. Might give them something to think about.

Good grief peddling the same line, the UK has not reneged on the PD. No where whatsoever does it say in the PD that the UK must use Barniers interpretations.

Jump up and down all you like, but if each have different interpretations then it comes down to what the meeting is about negotiating and hopefully both sides will meet in the middle somewhere.

Not hard for other nations to work out that the UK is merely looking to get the best deal in its own interests just like the EU. Bad faith bargaining eh, it’s all in the interpretation

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

One interesting statistic that is often misquoted by Brexiteers is that 3 million Europeans are in the UK vs 1.2 million British in the EU (some other sources put it at over 2 million but let's go with the lesser figure).

What this means is that, proportionally, British citizens exercise their freedom of movement to the EU at twice the rate other EU citizens move to the UK.

On a related note, the factory that made passports for the last years is closing.

https://t.co/F50vmaz4KP?amp=1

1.2 million British in the EU vs a Population of 60+ million British citizens. Quite irrelevant. Again the majority wins. If they want to come back fine, if the EU is happy to accept them also fine.

If you're fine with stripping millions of people of a certain right because of a 51-49 vote there's really not much to talk about.

And by that reasoning you would be fine with any future vote on anything that the minority who voted get to decide the outcome that’s real democratic you would make Xi Jinping proud

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

One interesting statistic that is often misquoted by Brexiteers is that 3 million Europeans are in the UK vs 1.2 million British in the EU (some other sources put it at over 2 million but let's go with the lesser figure).

What this means is that, proportionally, British citizens exercise their freedom of movement to the EU at twice the rate other EU citizens move to the UK.

On a related note, the factory that made passports for the last years is closing.

https://t.co/F50vmaz4KP?amp=1

1.2 million British in the EU vs a Population of 60+ million British citizens. Quite irrelevant. Again the majority wins. If they want to come back fine, if the EU is happy to accept them also fine.

If you're fine with stripping millions of people of a certain right because of a 51-49 vote there's really not much to talk about.

Great. Lets close this thread entirely then.

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

They will still come with our new immigration system. And we can get the people we need and want. It just may be a little harder but they will still come.

We'll see, right now many are leaving and have left due to the unfriendly climate in the UK.

Shame. That’s why we continue to bust our net migration target year after year then?

I work in Financial Services and we regularly take on overseas applicants and we have a very diverse workforce. We have people coming and going all the time and there’s no sign of that slowing down. Was speaking to a colleague on the phone who had just joined us from South Africa and couldn’t wait to get exploring Britain.

London being a world city much like New York and Paris is an attractive place to live and that will never change.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Legally-binding” or “not legally-binding” only matters in courts from this point on. As far as non-Brexiteers and third parties are concerned, the UK signed an agreement called the PD. If it reneges on this non legally binding declaration, I suspect many potential trade partners will pay close attention, as one would expect, if one of their main trading partners - the EU - accuses another nation of negotiating in bad faith. Might give them something to think about.

Good grief peddling the same line, the UK has not reneged on the PD. No where whatsoever does it say in the PD that the UK must use Barniers interpretations.

Jump up and down all you like, but if each have different interpretations then it comes down to what the meeting is about negotiating and hopefully both sides will meet in the middle somewhere.

Not hard for other nations to work out that the UK is merely looking to get the best deal in its own interests just like the EU. Bad faith bargaining eh, it’s all in the interpretation

Not to be pedantic, but you should pay more attention while reading. The post you quoted clearly says:

“If it reneges on this non legally binding declaration...”

It does not say the UK has reneged. For what it’s worth, Barnier’s interpretations are the EU’s interpretation. While Brexiteers may think this is between Barnier and May or Barnier and Johnson, it is quite evidently not between Barnier and anyone. It is between the UK and the EU.

Whether the UK reneges or not, remains to be seen. The Brexiteers’ view published above simply states what we all have been saying: there isn’t much room for “interpretation” in the PD. They - Brexiteers - call it a “grotesque bind”.

As for the “best deal”, that assumes that there will be no “no deal”. If the EU determines that the UK is reneging on the PD, there will be no deal. And everyone will wonder what the point of signing agreements is, if they’re tossed out whenever it suits the other party. Witness North Korea, that champion of advancing self-interests.

A101 wrote:

And by that reasoning you would be fine with any future vote on anything that the minority who voted get to decide the outcome that’s real democratic you would make Xi Jinping proud

I think you’re missing a few words somewhere in there, because it’s not clear what you’re trying to say.

Arion640 wrote:

Shame. That’s why we continue to bust our net migration target year after year then?

I work in Financial Services and we regularly take on overseas applicants and we have a very diverse workforce. We have people coming and going all the time and there’s no sign of that slowing down. Was speaking to a colleague on the phone who had just joined us from South Africa and couldn’t wait to get exploring Britain.

London being a world city much like New York and Paris is an attractive place to live and that will never change.

There is a lot of truth in this. However, it ignores one key fact: London remains attractive worldwide (hell, even I would happily move there if the right job came along) because it is diverse (aka full of people whose origins lie elsewhere), metropolitan, full of experts and professionals and highly educated, well-travelled folk (some might call them globalists) and voted in favor of remain.

How many of these newcomers want to go to leave strongholds like Boston, Lincolnshire? Like, ever. Lovely place though it may be.

Which is to say, it’s a bit odd watching a Brexiteer tout the International attractiveness of a city that has a large immigrant and European population and roundly rejected Brexit. London stands for many things that are actively at odds with Brexit ideology. Or whatever people believe in Boston Lincolnshire anyway.

Michael Gove warns the EU the the Northern Irish don't want EU bureacratic customs rules...then why sign an agreement with the EU? I wonder if Gove is applying for a job as screen writer for the next series of "Yes minister".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-gove-warns-northern-irish-153327359.html

Arion640 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

They will still come with our new immigration system. And we can get the people we need and want. It just may be a little harder but they will still come.

We'll see, right now many are leaving and have left due to the unfriendly climate in the UK.

Shame. That’s why we continue to bust our net migration target year after year then?

I work in Financial Services and we regularly take on overseas applicants and we have a very diverse workforce. We have people coming and going all the time and there’s no sign of that slowing down. Was speaking to a colleague on the phone who had just joined us from South Africa and couldn’t wait to get exploring Britain.

London being a world city much like New York and Paris is an attractive place to live and that will never change.

On the contrary, leaving the EU will make London even more global and booming. The UK will be attracting the world´s best and brightest once free of EU control.

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

1.2 million British in the EU vs a Population of 60+ million British citizens. Quite irrelevant. Again the majority wins. If they want to come back fine, if the EU is happy to accept them also fine.

If you're fine with stripping millions of people of a certain right because of a 51-49 vote there's really not much to talk about.

And by that reasoning you would be fine with any future vote on anything that the minority who voted get to decide the outcome that’s real democratic you would make Xi Jinping proud

So if a referendum result stripped gays of right to marriage or women of the right to vote you'd be ok with it?

Democracy is as much about protecting minorities rights as it is about reflecting the will of the majority.

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

If you're fine with stripping millions of people of a certain right because of a 51-49 vote there's really not much to talk about.

And by that reasoning you would be fine with any future vote on anything that the minority who voted get to decide the outcome that’s real democratic you would make Xi Jinping proud

So if a referendum result stripped gays of right to marriage or women of the right to vote you'd be ok with it?

Democracy is as much about protecting minorities rights as it is about reflecting the will of the majority.

Yes if it was a free and fair vote and open to both sexes the electorate voted in

As we have seen not everyone agrees, but the majority view prevails in a democracy irrespective if I agree or not

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

And by that reasoning you would be fine with any future vote on anything that the minority who voted get to decide the outcome that’s real democratic you would make Xi Jinping proud

So if a referendum result stripped gays of right to marriage or women of the right to vote you'd be ok with it?

Democracy is as much about protecting minorities rights as it is about reflecting the will of the majority.

Yes if it was a free and fair vote and open to both sexes the electorate voted in

As we have seen not everyone agrees, but the majority view prevails in a democracy irrespective if I agree or not

Those Jews who were stripped of their job and eventually nationality because of laws passed with due process should have just accepted it and moved on.